Another Buddha??

[Netti-Netti]

There must be some Buddhists who choose not to get off the wheel and keep coming back in order to continue their works of compassion. Which reminds me, why would Buddhism need a second or third Buddha?

Rinpoche Padmasambhavastarted has been called the second Buddha. He is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism and allegedly the author of the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

The Dalai Lama has also been referred to as the second Buddha. So has a monk by the name of Acharya Nagarjuna. So it seems there are three second Buddhas!!

In the Kadampa tradition, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (a scholar/teacher) has been identified as the "third Buddha."

If Guatama Buddha got off the wheel a while back, how can we accept these various new incarnations as legit?

Maybe the terms "second Buddha" and "third Buddha" are just being used figuratively to show respect and veneration for an important teacher....

 

[seattlegal]

Not getting off the wheel until all are liberated is a Bodhisattva vow, which is different from a Buddha. (The mechanism for a Buddha being born is different from a Bodhisattva, if I understand correctly.)

Gautama was considered to be the fourth Buddha. The next Buddha, the fifth, is referred to as Maitreya. I guess there are countless Buddhas.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti,

thank you for the OP.

the Suttas teach that there were innumerable Buddhas prior to Buddha Shakyamuni, though it lists 7 if i recall correctly, and will be on this world system at any rate, at least 16 more Buddhas to arise.

in the specifics you are mentioning in the OP it is more of a way of expressing appreciation and respect than anything else as the term Buddha is really just a descriptive title.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

Not getting off the wheel until all are liberated is a Bodhisattva vow....

Understood. But that's the Mahayana vow, isn't it? I'm trying to reconcile that view to Guatama's original teaching and perhaps a faulty notion I have that complete enlightenment would imply no coming back - i.e., no more incarnations.

The general consensus appears to be that Guatama was fully enlightened. That being the case, I would not expect any more incarnations.

Apparently some people have no problem with the fact that Guatama did not teach the Mahayana sutras. ok, I'm not losing sleep over it, but....

Gautama was considered to be the fourth Buddha. The next Buddha, the fifth, is referred to as Maitreya.

It seems Tibetan Buddhists regard Maitreya as both a Buddha and Boddhisattva.
Maitreya Buddha | **TIBET ARTS**

Some of the literature describes the Maitreya Buddha as a future Buddha who is as yet a bodhisattva in Tusita heaven, who presumably will at some point arrive on the scene to fulfill a Messianic mission that includes him becoming a world leader who ushers in a new world order (Mmm, sound familiar?) Apparently there's little disagreement about this among Buddhists.

Interestingly, even though many Buddhists are still waiting for the Maitreya Buddha to show up, there's now a whole list of folks who have claimed to be Maitreya. Quite a few of them are 20th century personages - including L. Ron Hubbard.
List of Buddha claimants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Netti-Netti]

the Suttas teach that there were innumerable Buddhas prior to Buddha Shakyamuni, though it lists 7 if i recall correctly, and will be on this world system at any rate, at least 16 more Buddhas to arise.

in the specifics you are mentioning in the OP it is more of a way of expressing appreciation and respect than anything else as the term Buddha is really just a descriptive title.

Namatse Vajradhara. Thank you for that. Also, thank you for your patience. As you can see, I'm struggling with the basics

Someone called Buddhism a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs. For me the problem is not just that some of these beliefs appear incompatible. As an observer *on the outside looking in,* there is also the problem of having a hard time making a determination about how important some of these concepts are. I suspect the issues could limit Westerners' participation in oriental philosophies and "religions."

Thanks again.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti,

if you are new to the Buddha Dharma and are interested in what may be considered foundational teachings, i would strongly suggest this site:

BuddhaNet's Buddhist Studies: A Basic Buddhism Guide

with regards to seemingly contradictory statements... that is precisely what you'd expect to find!

the Buddha taught that there are 84,000 different ways to enter the Dharma. 84,000 is a symbolic number which is indicative of myriad beings and their individual needs and capacities to understand and implement the teachings. taken in a literal sense this means that for every individual being there is a specific set of teachings which are ideal and that set is unique for that being and it may be quite different than anothers though the basics are shared by all schools. ymmv

metta,

~v

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Netti-Netti

The word Buddha is sometimes used by people to mean two different things. One meaning that is used is that all sentient beings at or above Gautama's level are Buddhas. Some people say that there are billions of Buddhas.

The other meaning used is that there is only one Buddha at a time. As Vaj has alluded to, Gautama was/is the only Buddha in a line of singular Buddhas in succession. In order to avoid confusion, I always call this kind of Buddha the World Teacher.

"Someone called Buddhism a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs."

--> Feel free to bring up any teachings you feel are contradictory. The more, the better.

 

[seattlegal]

Namatse Vajradhara. Thank you for that. Also, thank you for your patience. As you can see, I'm struggling with the basics

Someone called Buddhism a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs. For me the problem is not just that some of these beliefs appear incompatible. As an observer *on the outside looking in,* there is also the problem of having a hard time making a determination about how important some of these concepts are. I suspect the issues could limit Westerners' participation in oriental philosophies and "religions."

Thanks again.

Namaste Netti,

if you are new to the Buddha Dharma and are interested in what may be considered foundational teachings, i would strongly suggest this site:

BuddhaNet's Buddhist Studies: A Basic Buddhism Guide

with regards to seemingly contradictory statements... that is precisely what you'd expect to find!

the Buddha taught that there are 84,000 different ways to enter the Dharma. 84,000 is a symbolic number which is indicative of myriad beings and their individual needs and capacities to understand and implement the teachings. taken in a literal sense this means that for every individual being there is a specific set of teachings which are ideal and that set is unique for that being and it may be quite different than anothers though the basics are shared by all schools. ymmv

metta,

~v

How many different recipes are there for making pie? Would you hold someone to following "the original recipe" for apple pie when the person has peaches instead of apples? If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes? Would those contradictions invalidate the whole concept of pies, making pies into the ammunition for pie fights?

 

[Netti-Netti]

How many different recipes are there for making pie? Would you hold someone to following "the original recipe" for apple pie when the person has peaches instead of apples? If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes? Would those contradictions invalidate the whole concept of pies?

Greetings SG. I would have to make one less trip to the forum if you would include the answers with the questions you raise. Thank you.

 

[seattlegal]

Greetings SG. I would have to make one less trip to the forum if you would include the answers with the questions you raise. Thank you.

You must have posted this reply while I edited my post to include my smart-a**ed Zen style answer!

 

[Netti-Netti]

You must have posted this reply while I edited my post to include my smart-a**ed Zen type answer!

It seems the main difference relates to nonsectarian *Pie in the Face* ritual.

Generally, your questions strike me as fairly clear and reasonable ways of conceptualizing essential issues of doctrinal orthodoxy. I did have a problem with this one:

"If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes?"

Wouldn't it depend on the nature and severity of the contradictions? If you put in too much baking soda -- or not enough -- the pie may not even be edible, let alone a "delicious pie." In a very real sense, then, it may not qualify as Suchness. That could be a problem.

 

[seattlegal]

It seems the main difference relates to nonsectarian *Pie in the Face* ritual.

Generally, your questions strike me as fairly clear and reasonable ways of conceptualizing essential issues of doctrinal orthodoxy. I did have a problem with this one:

"If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes?"

Wouldn't it depend on the nature and severity of the contradictions? If you put in too much baking soda -- or not enough -- the pie may not even be edible, let alone a "delicious pie." In a very real sense, then, it may not qualify as Suchness.

You put baking soda in your pies? Eww....

 

[Netti-Netti]

You put baking soda in your pies? Eww....

Sorry, I meant baking powder. Does that change the analysis?

 

[seattlegal]

Sorry, I meant baking powder. Does that change the analysis?

I think I'd rather stick with the baking soda, if you must use a leavening agent. Baking powder can be rather explosive with too much heat. (I don't use either.)

btw, Would "Pie in the Face Ritual" be counted among the 'special transmission outside of doctrine?'

 

[Netti-Netti]

Good thing you don't have responsibilities as a moderator around here, SG.
If they were considering you, I think you may have ruined your chances.

btw, Would "Pie in the Face Ritual" be counted among the 'special transmission outside of doctrine?'

Good of you to include a relevant issue in the discussion. Alas, I don't have any answers for you.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Oops, almost forgot:

 

[seattlegal]

Good thing you don't have responsibilities as a moderator around here, SG.
If they were considering you, I think you may have ruined your chances.

No thank you, I might have to give up being a button pusher!
OK, sorry for taking the off-topic bait.

Good of you to include a relevant issue in the discussion. Alas, I don't have any answers for you.

I try.

 

[Snoopy]

I try.

You do, and very nice it is too.

My understanding is that “Buddha” is an epithet meaning “awakened or enlightened one.” In its narrowest sense (in common parlance), it refers to Siddhartha Gautama, as in the Buddha. In a somewhat broader sense, it refers to an “enlightened being,” hence Nagarjuna, Maitreya etc. In its widest sense, all beings are said to be a Buddha.


s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I think I'd rather stick with the baking soda, if you must use a leavening agent. Baking powder can be rather explosive with too much heat. (I don't use either.)

I'd be interested to know what you use instead of baking powder and baking soda.

I forget where I saw this. Something about true insight arises in a thicket of seemingly irrelevant, off-topic posts that push the envelope of absolutist thinking.

 

[seattlegal]

I'd be interested to know what you use instead of baking powder and baking soda.

I forget where I saw this. Something about true insight arises in a thicket of seemingly irrelevant, off-topic posts that push the envelope of absolutist thinking.

Well, to answer your question while keeping nominally within topic: relate the pastry making process to the original point of insisting on 'purely original teachings.' Pastry does not respond well to heavy-handed authority.

Baking powder and baking soda forcefully separates the flour apart, whereas when you mingle the fat with the flour, without forcefully homogenizing it, (i.e. cutting the fat into pea-sized chunks and lightly mingling it with the flour before adding the water,) and then with the lightest touch possible, rolling out and shaping the pastry, you will achieve flakiness when the pastry is heated and the fat melts, the fat will migrate towards the flour of its own accord, leaving the space one occupied by the fat empty, thus achieving a natural flakiness in an elegant and non-forceful manner.

Forced homogenization via rough handling toughens the pastry, and more rough action would be required to force the homogenized dough apart via baking powder or baking soda to achieve 'flakiness.' That would be analogous to the rough handling of Buddhism by forcing all the different schools of Buddhism to stick solely to 'the original teachings presented to those 'authorative' people so long ago, instead of adapting them to naturally work with each person.